While I wouldn't mind seeing that, it does raise an issue of whether they have a right to enforce laws. I think it all improperly confuses the rules of war, politics and law. All this aside from the monetary issues. I don't see how it can be cheaper to hire them in any capacity that a regular soldier would be in. If, as Doubt suggested they (the ones guarding Bremer) free up soldiers to do other things, I think we should just spend the money on additional official troops and training for that particular job.Outcast said:
Mercenaries Third Largest Force in Iraq
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
-
- Tags
- force iraq mercenaries
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
subgenius said:
Okay, I'll leave you alone. The mask didn't slip...all is forgotten. You can climb back up on your podium of self-righteous humanitarianism.
At least you seem to be a teensy weensy bit embarrassed about how you've posted on this subject,....I assure you AUP and Shemp won't be. There may be some hope for you yet.
-z
Oh and mercenaries? Aren't we all a bit mercenary? I do what I'm told to do for money...should I be murdered and dragged too? As long as these people are breaking no laws, I feel that they should be allowed to earn their livings unmolested just like anyone else.
When you say the word mercenary, the inference is of a private army that enforces their own law and recognises only it's own authority. A powerful group of thugs, unanswerable to higher authority.
That may not be a textbook definition, but it's what comes directly to my mind when I hear the term used. Yet you, AUP, and Shemp are using this term to define people who were hired to secure food aid convoys. You guys are using the term to spin these four victims into thuggish criminals. Blaming the victim. It's wrong.
As I said before, you should be ashamed of yourselves as human beings.
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
When I visited my sister at Elgin AFB in Florida a little over a year ago, all the gate security was private contractors, not military personnel.subgenius said:
Why mince words? "Private Security Forces" is just a nicer, more politically correct word for "mercenary." But just being a mercenary, like Doubt said, does not imply your loyalties only lie with anyone who would pay you. Luckily for American ex-soliders who enjoyed the work but want more pay, there are no shortage of companies willing to let them carry guns and be "patriots" at the same time.
In addition to highlighting that they get paid more than our service people, your post raises the old "no man can serve two masters" problem. I continue to not understand how it can be cheaper to contract this stuff out.Hexxenhammer said:
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
subgenius said:
What it comes down to is cost vs. time.
The contractors could be cheaper if they are employed on a short term bassis. When the job is done, you can lay off the contractors quickly. If you need them and again, you hire them back.
Standing forces are expensive. Even though the military is not well paid, the cost per person is high. Training, feeding and housing troops and their families is rather pricey in peace time. Doing things on a large scale is not very cheep when a large buracracy is involved. When you decide you need more troops, it takes lots of time and money to increase their numbers.
Taking “Joe Civilian” and turning him into a special operator is going to take at least 18 months from the day he starts basic training. Different forces have different training cycles. And then he will have very limited experience in a very narrow specialty. Renting a retired operator in his 30’s with 10 or more years experience gives you a jump start on operations. You can also turn those retires into trainers if the situation looks like a long term problem.
Another element to this is the CIA use of contractors. What they are do is going on in the shadows of the military operations. They often employ the same companies.
Doubt: Thanks for enlightening me on the cost thing.
The "shadows of military operations" thing still concerns me, as it is obviously on the shadows of legality as well. My concern is that we are just contracting out illegal activity that we couldn't engage in.
The "shadows of military operations" thing still concerns me, as it is obviously on the shadows of legality as well. My concern is that we are just contracting out illegal activity that we couldn't engage in.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
What is the difference between a security guard and a mercenary? 'Mercenary' seems to be the term of choice when discussing these individuals (at least amongst those opposed to the Iraq war), doubtless because if the 'Dogs of War' connotations. How are they different from bodyguards or armed security guards?
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
The difference is that they are in a war zone, not protecting some dizzy starlet from paparazzi and stalkers. A merc is a soldier for hire. These "security personnel" are carrying out activities that would be performed by military personnel if troops weren't stretched thin. So they're professional soldiers ready to fight and kill to protect american or international interests if they are attacked. How is that not a mercenary?crackmonkey said:
Note: I don't find mercenary to be a dirty word. I've read lots of David Drake. Apparently turnabout is fairplay in the world of political correctness with the right's fear of the word "mercenary" and the need to call them "private security forces."
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
If you forgo the semantics which most of this thread has been you are left with the original point that AUP tried to make; Mercenaries are doing a lot of the fighting because there's not enough support for soldiers to do it. There have not been any evidence presented other than the amount of mercenaries and who is using them. All I see presented here is that people are hired to guard places and other people and are skilled enough to use forced when required. They are not, however, going around and conducting military operations like AUP insinuated they are doing, so once again, AUP is wrong and the thread is a waste of time.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
So the difference is merely in location? They're security guards until they're in a 'war zone', at which time they become mercenaries.
Ditto the 'turnabout' thing with the left calling them 'mercenaries' - they've typically been called security services through the years - along with the typical 'thugs' etc. See Shemp's post for elaboration.
Ditto the 'turnabout' thing with the left calling them 'mercenaries' - they've typically been called security services through the years - along with the typical 'thugs' etc. See Shemp's post for elaboration.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
crackmonkey said:
The term mercenary does apply to these individuals.
There is no solid boundary between security guard, bodyguard and mercenary. But the term security guard does not suggest the range of abilities and services provided by these companies and the individuals that work for them.
These are not the guys you hire to guard the local bank or Wallmart. You may hire them as bodyguards if the threat is high enough. But the range of services involved includes far more than run of the mill security or keeping away obsessed star struck fans.
These are not people you hire with the expectation of guarding physical property with a small risk to their own well-being.
These are people that you hire with a very high expectation that they will get shot at. These are the people that have a very real expectation that they will use deadly force to protect property.
If you still have any questions, take a look at the skills Blackwater Security is looking for:
http://blackwatersecurity.com/resumescrub.html
Can you tell me why a security guard needs to be trained on how to conduct a raid or call in artillery?
Hexxenhammer
Malleus Malefactorum
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2003
- Messages
- 2,122
I don't agree with Shemp's post. These guys provide a service that people want. Good for them for doing it and making a buck at it. Shemp is partially right that no one cries for a dead mercenary, that is, if you call him one, because of the negative conotations the word has. Which is why few reports about the guys killed mention what they did and why they were simply called "contractors".crackmonkey said:
evildave
Unregistered
E
Troll said:
What? Iran and Iraq were fighting around the Gulf, where all those lovely big tankers full of petroleum were going south full, and north empty. Both nations routinely sent fighter aircraft over the water, and occasionally threatened to attack oil tankers. I got to watch some of them. Lucky me.
In order to keep the tankers moving, SOME security was required. We were providing surveillance of the situation, monitoring air traffic, and specifically military traffic for air missions that did NOT go the right directions. Some of them didn't. We had interceptors waiting. Usually on the ground, but on some occasions in the air.
Our interest there was making sure that Iran or Iraq didn't start blowing up oil tankers, and cause the flow of petroleum to halt. All it would have taken was one or two ships, and nobody would have gone into the Persian Gulf to move oil because of insurance reasons, and we'd have had a nice time back home paying $3.00 a gallon for gas in the 80's.
It was in the Saudi Arabian government's best interest, because it kept the petroleum (and their income) flowing. They hosted us.
It was in our best interest, being a leading consumer of that same petroleum.
To insist that petroleum is NOT the core reason for all of this mess is to truly be out of touch with reality.
crackmonkey
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,057
If the 'semantic pin-dancing' bothers you, then let's just call them security guards and be done with this pettiness.
Once again - how are these security guards different from an armed guard in, say, Kuwait? Or your local bank, for that matter? Is it merely because they work in a high-risk area?
Once again - how are these security guards different from an armed guard in, say, Kuwait? Or your local bank, for that matter? Is it merely because they work in a high-risk area?